Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Agnimitra]

Arjun ji,

I do hope, though, that you see how having even a faint idea of what the Veda is about can make a huge difference in how it is allowed to be interpreted. In an earlier post I had given an example of opening a computer file using an MP3 player versus a word processor.

In the same way, by examining the properties assigned to the Veda (by its self-description as well as general traditional understanding) and making sense of them, we can decide whether the Veda can be (mis)interpreted in one way or not.

[RajeshA]

Murugan ji,

Just so that terms are not used arbitrarily, I wanted to put in a few words.

You earlier gave examples of certain people. I too consider people like Chanakya, Dayanand Saraswati, Aurobindo, Baba Ramdev as enlightened seers, perhaps even as modern rishis, but what all of them share beyond their deep understanding of Vedic knowledge system is their love for India AND for the Indian people. They were and are patriotic people. When one reads about them or sees them, one never gets the feeling that they would for a second think that the Vedic knowledge system and the Indian people do not belong together or that the Indians should not be immersed in Vedic thought and culture, and they work(-ed) to see that it is so. These sons of the soil work(-ed) to strengthen the whole Indian Civilization. These were patriotic Vedics.

Patriotic Vedics and Vedic Parachuters are at the two opposite ends of the spectrum. Please see definition.

So calling the above people as Vedic Parachuters would be insulting to them, which of course is not your intention.

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

a minor quibble if I may!

Many posters who come to this thread and present their views including ones often contrary to our approach here on this thread, shed valuable light in many ways - both their insights into the subject matter albeit from a different angle, but also provide us with reasons and the ability to psycho-analyze them for their opposition. This again allows us to tap into a much broader base of opinion out there, which do not see much wrong with AIT.

This analysis of their opposition also allows us to build ideological profiles. Some BRFites have helped us build the AIT-Sepoy and Vedic-Parachuter profiles. In that way also, I have found their contributions here useful.

I however feel that we should not be calling these posters names like AIT-Sepoy or Vedic-Parachuter. Calling names may introduce a level of acrimony that may in fact be distracting for the thread.

Also many thanks for your efforts to bring back this thread on track.

[Arjun]

I do hope, though, that you see how having even a faint idea of what the Veda is about can make a huge difference in how it is allowed to be interpreted. In an earlier post I had given an example of opening a computer file using an MP3 player versus a word processor.

In the same way, by examining the properties assigned to the Veda (by its self-description as well as general traditional understanding) and making sense of them, we can decide whether the Veda can be (mis)interpreted in one way or not.

Carl ji, the references you provide are useful - but at the same time they are not definitive in pointing to ONLY one possible inference. So at best, based on the evidence, I can state that it would be good for everyone to have an open mind & it is indeed possible that Sanskrit was derived from the RV rather than RV being composed in Sanskrit.

However, for those who are skeptical you would still have to explain anomalies which are by no means easy. For example, how do you account for words for ayas (metal) and smelting occurring in the RV? This would immediately place the RV in the metal age, ie these meanings couldn't possibly have been given in the Stone Age when both these concepts were unknown to humanity.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ words shift in meaning. A very easy example that happened within one life span, "gay".

An example of finding the meaning that suits the theory is the AITers' speculation that RV samurai did not mean sea.

[RajeshA]

For example, how do you account for words for ayas (metal) and smelting occurring in the RV?

Arjun ji,

if 'ayas' refers to metal in general then 'gold' was known to society since a very long time. Here is one link!

[shiv]

My approach on this issue has been based on two premises -
1. The use of Rig Veda by AITs is only a minor component of their overall messing and AIT can be countered without recourse to fighting over the contents of the Rig Veda and their implied or imagined meanings save for a few "positive" instances where "Saraswati" is used to refer to a river and a few "negative" instances that show that Rig veda says nothing about horse or chariots burials

2. There is a "Jo Lahore mein gaandu.." factor in play. Any group who have to fudge meanings from the Rig veda or languages have fudged in so many places that concentrating on the Rig Veda will cause me to miss all the other bullshitting that has taken place with regard to other languages and dates and archaeological finds

[RajeshA]

Why do we try to squeeze ourselves, us SDRE Indians, into the equation? There is nothing special about us! Whatever discoveries were made were made by some Aryan rishis who had more to do with Europeans than the natives of India, and in any way they are long gone and India does not represent their legacy!

Yes, there is nothing special about you, me, etc., by virtue of being somebody's son, grandson, etc. Witzel owns more Sanskrit than you, until you know Sanskrit better than him. Of course, what you have, and he doesn't, is a stronger connection to the Indian ethos, and therefore the hope is you (I/we) will connect back to it fully again.

Witzel has of course more right to have knowledge of Sanskrit. After all Sanskrit is much more similar to his PIE, which Europoids used to speak in the Pontics, than to my "Dravidian". Why should I learn Sanskrit? It is not my language. I want all Sanskrit speakers and their progeny to leave me alone which my "backward" culture. I don't want your Sanskrit from the Pontics digesting my indigenous culture!

Also all this Vedas in Sanskrit and so on is only to make a Sudra out of me and to oppress me. I want nothing to have to do with the Vedas or Sanskrit. I am against this external aggression by Vedic Central Asians. You don't belong in India. Leave the natives alone!

As KLP Dubey ji has already predicted that the last Vedic would be a Westerner, so I don't think there is any need for us to struggle here against the inevitable. I guess the ivory tower of Vedic scholars in India itself plans on shifting to the West, leaving the SDRE Indians to choose between Allah and Jesus!

I try to support Swami Dayananda Saraswati, whose ashram here is the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam at Saylorsburg, PA. He even at past 80 years of age, is doing more than most to keep your inevitable outcome from happening. The question is - are SDRE Indians going to walk the walk, not just talk it?

No SDREs are not going to do any walking or talking as per this vile Aryan agenda. It is in fact good that you all are leaving India and migrating to Aryan countries. Aryans have been able to oppress the natives for a very long time, but now the oppression is over. I am happy that this foreign religion of Vedas is finally returning to Aryan country of America! It is up to Americans to decide whether they want to chant Vedas or not. But they certainly do not belong in India.

Perhaps we SDREs are really a "kabab men haddi", because we are insisting on some ownership of Sanskrit and the Vedic culture for ourselves. But then Vedas is for everybody and so we should not insist on any copyrights! Right?

Ownership comes from expertise and practice.

I don't want any ownership of this chanting business. If some Americans want to do it, it is their thing! I don't claim any ownership of Veda, because I am a native Indian, and Vedas came with the Aryans from the Pontics. It is not mine!

Also why worry about all those dead kings who ruled India in the last 15,000 years! They are all dead, and what does it matter whether they are considered fiction or real?! Does it also matter whether Mathematics came from India or from the Greeks? For the modern world, important is that it is there! We SDREs should not try to act immodestly or chauvinistically!

Some of the things chauvinist Indians have done have damaged faith in Indian knowledge systems. Because the chauvinist leaves behind the touchstone of what is true, what is demonstrable, what will require faith to accept.

What are these Indian knowledge systems? If it is this Veda thing only, then I object to these being called Indian. There is nothing Indian about them. They are free to travel where ever they want! Only chauvinist Indo-Aryans from the Pontics claim that these "knowledge systems" are Indian and thus try to lay claims to India. You must be a chauvinist Indo-Aryan!

Let's be clear about something! Either we make a stand and demand that we be treated as a civilization with its accomplishments and that means destroying AIT and correcting our history, or we put up our hands and say it is a good thing that now more Americans know Veda and Sanskrit and Veda has been saved, regardless of whether our civilization lies fully fragmented with the Sanskriti long having left our shores.

If we behave like a civilization, we have no demands to make of anyone else, we stand on our own. "Demand we be treated..." already conceded the battle that someone else determines our status.

Indo-Aryans have destroyed the local culture in India with their Veda and its oppression. We native Indians demand that the Indo-Aryans treat us a separate civilization which has nothing to do with their Veda stuff.

Why I like this thread is that it has given a lot of people enthusiasm to examine
1. the past
2. the ancient works
3. dharma

Trying to predetermine the outcome, and demanding that anything but OIT will be a failure, is not a recipe for long-term success. The goal is, that whatever the history turns out to be, it will be Indians who are the foremost experts on it. There are no shortcuts.

I agree with you completely. OIT is bakwas. Some people here are trying to prove OIT using very dubious methods. These are not open people with scientific bent of mind. They have already predetermined the outcome!

_________

Added Later: I am just playing the devil's advocate here! To understand please see the next post addressed to A_Gupta ji.

[Arjun]

^^^ words shift in meaning. A very easy example that happened within one life span, "gay".

An example of finding the meaning that suits the theory is the AITers' speculation that RV samurai did not mean sea.

But then there are the Nighantu and Nirukta that are the equivalent of ancient dictionaries and thesaurus....There are enough clues from Nighantu for example that Ayas related to metal in some way, probably bronze to begin with.

Gold itself had a separate word, so it had to be at a time when other (base) metals implements were known.

There could, of course, have been a number of shifts in word meaning prior to them being formalized in Nighantu/Nirukta.

[Murugan]

Rajesh gaaru,

Nsmaskar!

I wish we do not give any negative connotation to word vedas, vedic etc.

Regards

[A_Gupta]

RajeshA,
I see you deal with dissent in a very mature fashion.
Like KLP Dubeyji, I bow to your superior wisdom, and declare you the winner.

[A_Gupta]

What material culture can be gleaned from the Brahmanas and Aranyakas alone (leave aside the Samhita), and how does that correlate to the archaeological record?

[Arjun]

I however feel that we should not be calling these posters names like AIT-Sepoy or Vedic-Parachuter. Calling names may introduce a level of acrimony that may in fact be distracting for the thread.

In this particular case, my intention was in fact to reduce the level of acrimony by using a more generic term as opposed to naming a specific individual.

Let me say that I agree entirely with Murugan ji on the matter. An attitude that doesn't suffer from arrogance; and mutual respect are key as regards at least the various OIT or Anti-AIT positions. If some folks do not believe in acknowledging the pioneering work of other OIT-ers and choose to disparage them - then it is rather arrogant of them to believe that they can demand respect for their own stances.

The problem is even more acute here in that there are some who have specifically set themselves up as some kinds of 'custodians' of the Vedas. In fact - it is even more critical for these folks to behave in a responsible manner - because reaction from the populace to their arrogance could very easily get transferred to the Vedas rather than just to their own personalities. So, while it is good to know that there are strong defenders of the sanctity of the Vedas, one hopes that these defenders are also suitable for their roles and don't end up creating more backlash than goodwill within society.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA,
I see you deal with dissent in a very mature fashion.
Like KLP Dubeyji, I bow to your superior wisdom, and declare you the winner.

A_Gupta ji,

you are making a certain kind of argumentation. It is on the lines that Vedic knowledge systems NEED NOT be treated as an intrinsic part of the Indian Civilization to which the genetic progeny of all those who contributed to it, per default would also belong to, unless of course, if they voluntarily decide to adopt a different civilizational identity.

You are trying to decouple the two, just as the AIT-proponents as well Hinduism-digesters try to decouple the two - the former saying that the Vedic knowledge systems have a non-Indian origin anyway, and the latter insisting that these knowledge systems are universal and there is no need to consider them an Indian copyright.

I am simply tried to extrapolate the consequences of this argumentation! What I wrote earlier is the Indian perspective of AIT to show just how corrosive it is!

The thing is that many here want to dabble in Vedic knowledge systems without understanding the issue of identity. If the identity of the Indians has been manipulated to reject our indigenous accomplishments considering them alien (AIT propaganda) and forms of oppression (caste victimization propaganda, etc.), then regardless of all the value of these knowledge systems, they would be rejected. These people with deformed identities would then "cut themselves loose" from Bharatiya Sanskriti and will be willing to look at other ideologies in the market.

There is nothing futuristic about this. It has been happening for quite some time. AIT too is also there for quite some time, since 65 years being taught by Indians themselves in our schools.

Destroying AIT is central to keeping the cohesiveness of the Indic Identity, which is a primary condition for acceptance of Vedic knowledge systems among a section of the Indian people, who do not or cannot identify themselves with the supposed Indo-Aryans who brought the Vedas. And basically if this section of the Indian people reject this heritage, then due to the lowest common denominator principle in India on matters of culture, the others too would not be encouraged to benefit from the Vedic knowledge systems in any systematic way!

You may not have appreciated me playing the devil's advocate in the previous post, but it is important to know how AIT impacts the socio-psychological-political dynamics of India.

[A_Gupta]

Robert S.P. Beekes, in "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics", tells us

As of the fifth century BC, we speak of Middle Indo-Aryan. Because Middle Indo-Aryan languages do not exactly derive from the old Indo-Aryan which we know (but from other dialects), they are also significant from the viewpoint of comparative linguistics.

From the text, it appears Beekes does not include Panini in Middle Indo-Aryan but rather the old Indo-Aryan.

So, what are these vanished dialects from which Middle Indo-Aryan derives?

[RajeshA]

Rajesh gaaru,

Nsmaskar!

I wish we do not give any negative connotation to word vedas, vedic etc.

Regards

Murugan ji,

Vedas can never have a negative connotation. I spoke only about the people! I presume you are speaking of the "Vedic Parachuters" ideological profile.

It is an important profile, because it demands of Vedic scholars their pound of patriotism and urges them to think of all Indians and their multi-faceted well-being rather than just about themselves and their bond to the Vedas. The latter is important but it is not sufficient as their Dharmic duty. Bharat too deserves consideration.

[RajeshA]

The problem is even more acute here in that there are some who have specifically set themselves up as some kinds of 'custodians' of the Vedas. In fact - it is even more critical for these folks to behave in a responsible manner - because reaction from the populace to their arrogance could very easily get transferred to the Vedas rather than just to their own personalities. So, while it is good to know that there are strong defenders of the sanctity of the Vedas, one hopes that these defenders are also suitable for their roles and don't end up creating more backlash than goodwill within society.

I agree totally with this.

Here is what I had to say about arrogance and how harmful it can prove to the cause of the Vedas!

[A_Gupta]

I don't recall seeing it mentioned here, but it is relevant:
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... acist.html

[shiv]

Robert S.P. Beekes, in "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics", tells us

As of the fifth century BC, we speak of Middle Indo-Aryan. Because Middle Indo-Aryan languages do not exactly derive from the old Indo-Aryan which we know (but from other dialects), they are also significant from the viewpoint of comparative linguistics.

From the text, it appears Beekes does not include Panini in Middle Indo-Aryan but rather the old Indo-Aryan.

So, what are these vanished dialects from which Middle Indo-Aryan derives?

The terms old and middle Indo Aryan are unfamilar to me. I need to see what Beekes was referring to when he said that.

But I just had a chance to go through relevant parts of a fabulous work on Panini by one Goldstucker. The most interesting bit is the detailed manner in which Goldstucker analyses the works of Panini, Patanjali and Katyayani to conclude that
1. Panini did not know the Atharva Veda and lived before it was composed although he referes to the earlier 3 vedas
2. Panini lived much before Katyayani and Patanjali after Katyayani

Goldstucker also confirms the detailed analysis of the word "Chhandas" which in general means "Veda"

[ramana]

When posts are reported only the amins get to see them. So if you want to address someone please ask them directly.

[shiv]

Robert S.P. Beekes, in "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics", tells us

As of the fifth century BC, we speak of Middle Indo-Aryan. Because Middle Indo-Aryan languages do not exactly derive from the old Indo-Aryan which we know (but from other dialects), they are also significant from the viewpoint of comparative linguistics.

From the text, it appears Beekes does not include Panini in Middle Indo-Aryan but rather the old Indo-Aryan.

So, what are these vanished dialects from which Middle Indo-Aryan derives?

I found Beekes book online along with the quote but I am still not sure what he is talking about. I think he is referring to Classical Sanskrit being affected by Prakrits

Anyhow here is one book review of Beekes' book
http://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Indo- ... 1556195052

In addition, most of the first 100 pages is basically irrelevant and should not be there -- it consists of general discussions of the comparative method and of sound change, analogy, the various language families of the world, and other stuff that belongs in a general book on historical linguistics. This appears to be Beekes' attempt at making this an "introduction", but in fact it just robs him of space he needs in order to better explain stuff in the rest of the book. He throws in other random stuff too, such as a detailed 10-page appendix "From Proto-Indo-European to Albanian", which seems present for no other reason than Beekes wanting to show off some personal work of his. Now if he had bothered to also include other, extremely necessary, stuff such as "From Proto-Indo-European to Greek" (and also Sanskrit, and Latin), I wouldn't begrudge him so much, but he doesn't.

On top of all this, the actual content is quite biased towards his own particular views, which are in many cases not the majority opinion. He seems extremely inclined to take speculative leaps in his reconstructions, which often result in fringe ideas that he asserts to be received wisdom, making no distinction between his own ideas and what is generally accepted. For an "introduction", this is absolutely fatal. Often he will simply make assertions regarding controversial topics without any discussion, e.g. when talking about Grimm's Law, he writes "... and the aspirated sounds have lots their aspiration (the idea that these latter sounds originally were spirants is incorrect)." So in one parenthetical remark he dismisses one of the most controversial issues in Indo-European studies by expressing his opinion as if it were the word of God, no explanation necessary (and none is provided).

Also, often his reasoning is wrong. Much of it is circular (e.g. this `a' cannot be an `a' in PIE because PIE had no a's -- and PIE "had no a's" purely by assumption); much of it is ludicrously speculative, often of the silly kind where "well, pronouns A and B have form 1 in one language and form 2 in another, so it must have been that pronoun A originally had form 1 and B form 2, and each language generalized." [well, this is one possibility, but there are a zillion others that involve different mechanisms as well ...] Furthermore, he seems to simply not understand the fundamental idea that languages change, in that his reconstructions are a random mix of forms quite obviously from different time periods, and he makes no attempt to separate later from earlier forms or to present any coherent picture at all of early vs. later PIE.

[A_Gupta]

^^^^ Ha, ha, on examination I think it will be true that comparative linguistics is like that, no two practitioners really agree. To be definite, one will have to take any one practitioner, and then later expand to the others.

The advantage that comparative linguistics gains from this "diversity" is that it is very difficult to contradict anything because comparative linguistics also holds the opposite opinion.

Anyway, I as recall, I picked Beekes because Wiki articles cited him.

PS: The Preface to the Second Edition of Beekes says:

The first edition of this book was both acclaimed and heavily criticized, sometimes by the same reviewer in the same review......Another point of criticism was the particular brand of Indo-European construction, the so-called "Leiden school", and the fact that the author does not provide references for many claims which deviate from the received opinion of 1995......As main competitors in the market, I regard Meier-Brugger (2010) and Fortson (2004) .....

[Dan Mazer]

Added Later: I am just playing the devil's advocate here! To understand please see the next post addressed to A_Gupta ji.

Sorry to interrupt your exchange. If OIT was the dominant theory instead of AIT, the 'devil's advocate' in your post would simply have to replace Central Asia by North India and India by South India and it would still be valid.

eg: North Indian Aryans have destroyed the local culture in South India with their Veda and its oppression. We native South Indians demand that the North Indian Aryans treat us a separate civilization which has nothing to do with their Veda stuff.

In fact, this is exactly what the rhetoric of the Dravidian parties sounds like! The 'Central Asian origin' hardly plays a part in their rhetoric.

[RajeshA]

Added Later: I am just playing the devil's advocate here! To understand please see the next post addressed to A_Gupta ji.

Sorry to interrupt your exchange. If OIT was the dominant theory instead of AIT, the 'devil's advocate' in your post would simply have to replace Central Asia by North India and India by South India and it would still be valid.

eg: North Indian Aryans have destroyed the local culture in South India with their Veda and its oppression. We native South Indians demand that the North Indian Aryans treat us a separate civilization which has nothing to do with their Veda stuff.

In fact, this is exactly what the rhetoric of the Dravidian parties sounds like! The 'Central Asian origin' hardly plays a part in their rhetoric.

Dan Mazer ji,

a few points:

1) Let's not forget the narrative by the Dravidian parties, that it was Dravidians (read Tamils) who used to live in the IVC and it was the Indo-Aryans who pushed them out. It is still the undiluted AIT that they ascribe to. So the Dravidianists too claim the whole of the Indian Subcontinent as their homeland, and not just Tamil Nadu or South India! [Shared Land Claims Legitimacy]

2) The question is what does one consider as the optimal geographical space of intense cultural interaction. I would say the answer is the whole Indian Subcontinent, where people from all spheres of life had much cultural interaction. Today also the the political unity has the form of India stretching from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. So any identity building has to include this whole geographical space. Once one starts building one's identity on this space, then all peaceful cultural interactions within regions in this space are considered legitimate and not destructive. So at this level, the Dravidianists cannot say North Indians are outsiders to neither had nor have any right influence the South culturally. Of course influence would flow in the other direction also. In short, Indian Subcontinent is one geographical historical unit. [Single Geographical Unit Legitimacy]

3) Let's also be aware of when this North Indian influence reached the South! Just because we have a historical memory from thousands of years ago, and one can read about it in the Puranas and in Itihaas, one should not mistake it for recent memory. The 'Aryanization' may have started taking place around 15,000 years ago. [Antiquity Legitimacy]

4) Considering the model of Reich et al., the Tamils do not represent some pure Ancestral South Indian gene pool. There has been much mixing of Ancestral South Indian genes and Ancestral North Indian genes across the breadth of India. So even the North Indians are basically 'Dravidian', just as Dravidians are also 'Aryans'. [Genetic Legitimacy]

5) Many of those who would be considered among Dravidianists to have promoted 'Aryanization' there, were also responsible for promoting the Tamil language and enriching it. The 'Aryanization' process has not been culturally destructive, but on the contrary linguistically enriching. The fact that Tamil language is a live and kicking language is testimony to the benign nature of the 'Aryanization' process. It is not culturally destructive. [Cultural Morality Legitimacy]

6) Before Robert Caldwell started manipulating the history of the Tamil language giving it separatist foundations in 1856, there is no testimony, written or in traditional memory that there was any antagonism between Tamil speakers and any 'Aryans'. [Friendly Relations Legitimacy]

So as we see under AIT, the Dravidianists can make a case of just anger at 'Aryans', under OIT, the anger is only misplaced.

[Nilesh Oak]

But I just had a chance to go through relevant parts of a fabulous work on Panini by one Goldstucker. The most interesting bit is the detailed manner in which Goldstucker analyses the works of Panini, Patanjali and Katyayani to conclude that
1. Panini did not know the Atharva Veda and lived before it was composed although he referes to the earlier 3 vedas
2. Panini lived much before Katyayani and Patanjali after Katyayani

Towards determination of time of Panini...

People translate words such as 'vidyam' etc. in Ramayana to mean 'Veda'. This may or may not be true. In many cases the references to Veda is generic (i.e. not specifying 3 or 4). I do have to go back and check for specific reference to 4 vedas. In most cases, both Ramayana and MBH refer to Rik, Yajus and Sama. This would mean Atharva was not recognized as specific Veda#4 until then (may be it was recasted as #4 during recasting/editing by Vyasa or soemtime afterward by his disciples etc. Let's mark this time as 5561 BC.

This leads us to our next problem, Timing of Atharva Veda. I have heard/read timing speculated for Atharva veda to be around ~3000 BC. Not sure what basis was used (other than armchair speculation!). If anyone knows more, please post. There is indirect reference in support of this, i.e. at least recognition of Atharva Veda as 4th veda, after 5561 BC.....

Atharva- Shirsha which is dedicated to Dev Ganesh is part of Atharva Veda. Dev Ganesh is not mentioned in Ramayana (to be specific Valmiki Ramayana.. since other Ramayana might mention Ganesh.. and Puranas we even have stories of Ganesh tricking Ravana (Gokarna Mahabaleshwar story and so on) and his only mention as scribe of Mahabharata is found in only southern recensions of MBH text.

Wikipedia states.

It is conjectured that the core text of the Atharvaveda falls within the classical Mantra period of Vedic Sanskrit at the end of the 2nd millennium BCE - roughly contemporary with the Yajurveda mantras, the Rigvedic Khilani, and the Sāmaveda.

The Atharvaveda is also the first Indic text to mention iron (as krsna ayas, literally "black metal"), so that scholarly consensus dates the bulk of the Atharvaveda hymns to the early Indian Iron Age, corresponding to the 12th to 10th centuries BC, or the early Kuru kingdom.

Tradition suggests that Paippalāda, one of the early collators, and Vaidharbhī, one of the late contributors associated with the Atharvanic text, lived during the reign of prince Hiranyanabha of the Ikshvāku dynasty.

Ignoring 2nd Millennium BC, what it states is that 'it was contemporary with Yajurvad mantras (not sure if this is simply based on 2nd Millennum BC.. more likely.. but let's move on for now). If we consider Krishna yajurved, then it would make it contemporary of MBH times (as Yajnavalkya-recaster/editor of Krishna Yajurved was nephew of Vaishmapayan who was in turn disciple of Ved Vyasa). If reference is to recasting of Shukla Yajurved, then see below (this whole point is mute.. if Yaju-Atharva connection is pure speculation...based on another specultion of 2nd millennium BC).

I will skip 'Krishna Ayas" and related stuff from wiki as it tells one how deprived 'scholars' are of their commonsense.

Since Pippalad tradition is and Vidarbhi.. leate contributors of Atharva lived during reign of Prince Hranyabha of Ikshaku dynasty.. that would mean the time of ~ 11 generations before MBH War (since Hirnayabha of Ikshavaku .. at least one such king with that name.. there could be many with that name within Ikshavku for all we know.... was 11 generations before 'Brihadbal' who fought in MBH war).

[A_Gupta]

I was pointed to this article on the ancient horse. Probably nothing we do not already know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 ... ated-Horse

The earliest archaeological evidence of horses being used for milk and for riding comes from the Botai culture of Kazakhstan.

In the residues in Botai pottery archaeologists have found the distinctive traces of mare’s milk which dates to 3000 to 3500 BCE. This is evidence that domesticated horses were being milked.

My understanding is that Indo-Aryans did not use mare's milk. Correct?

[ramana]

Nilesh, Vyasa separated the Vedas. He was contemporary and source of the Mahabharat. And its dated just before start of Kaliyuga. Ergo its 3000BC!

[KLP Dubey]

Etc, etc. So, the purpose here is to detect the combinatorics of the sounds of the Veda, the patterns and sequences and contextual meanings, in such a way as to be able to approximate the laws of its expression so that it can be used in practical life (Yajna) according to the exigencies of the situation.

Excellent post. Right from the pratishakhyas to even modern grammars like that of Macdonell, it is clear that the effort relies upon "making sense" of an existing set of sounds. These efforts take the following general route:

1) cataloguing of sound patterns
2) finding grammatical patterns and rules from that list
3) cataloguing the words that seem to follow the patterns and rules
4) separate cataloguing of the words that do NOT follow the patterns/rules
5) cataloguing of meanings that various people have suggested/used/derived

To any reasonable individual, this should clearly mean that a language was being attempted to be derived from already fixed sounds, with whatever analytical tools were available to the ancients.

Anyway, here is Yaska's introductory note in the Nirukta (difficult to get more ancient or authentic than that):

A TRADITIONAL list of words has been handed down to us. It is to be here explained. This same list is called Nighantavas. From what root is (the word) Nighantavas derived ?They are words quoted from the Vedas (ni-gamAh). Having been repeatedly gathered together from Vedic hymns, they have been handed down by tradition. Aupamanyava holds that, as these are the quoted words of the Vedas, they are called Nighantavas on account of their being quoted. Or else (the word Ni-ghantavas) may be (so called) from being fixed only, i.e. a list in which they (the words) are fixed together, or collected together.

It is to be noted that by Yaska's time, items #1 and #4 had already progressed to a great extent. He mainly focused on item #5.

For items #1-#4, the pratishakhyas are the earliest sources.

Just like trying to formulate the observable expressions of nature into laws that we can use to build machines, etc. Except that here its not about the expressions of physical reality, but about the expressions of epistemological principles.

True, but the ultimate purpose of Yajna was to attain a state of "Dharma" in which both physical reality and expressions of epistemological principles converge into a single thing. A world in which the Words (notice the capitalization to separate this concept from the mundane/earthly "words") themselves operate as Laws of Nature, with the Verbs acting upon the Nouns.

KL

[Arjun]

My understanding is that Indo-Aryans did not use mare's milk. Correct?

ManishH's argument was that RV folks probably originated in Sintashta - and similar evidence has not been found there....That's a poor argument though - that entire region to this day is famous for mare's milk being considered a delicacy. This hair-splitting doesn't hold water.

[shiv]

I was pointed to this article on the ancient horse. Probably nothing we do not already know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 ... ated-Horse

The earliest archaeological evidence of horses being used for milk and for riding comes from the Botai culture of Kazakhstan.

In the residues in Botai pottery archaeologists have found the distinctive traces of mare’s milk which dates to 3000 to 3500 BCE. This is evidence that domesticated horses were being milked.

My understanding is that Indo-Aryans did not use mare's milk. Correct?

Yes. This was a point made by Rajesh. If you keep reading about that horse culture you find that isotope studies of human bones have shown that 40% of the diet may have been horse meat. This came up earlier in this thread.

The horse argument is one of the silliest and most lame ones I have come across, especially the bit about how they waited until they got chariots with spoked wheel before going out and conquering the world and giving language. The interesting thing is that David Anthony's book, The Horse, wheel and Language seems to be written with the same tone and intent as Jared Diamond's best selling "Guns, Germs and Steel" so that well written tripe can make up for fudging on facts. People believe it, to my chagrin and frustration, because the story sounds so good. No one really wants to hear the objections because it is a bit like a happy fairy tale, which is what it is.

The train of logic used is on the lines of "Shiv spoke to Arun Gupta. Arun Gupta shares a name with the Maurya Dynasty. Shiv is connected with Chandragupta Maurya"

Horses and chariots were buried in Botai. Horse and horse sacrifice is mentioned in Rig Veda. Shatapatha Brahmana mentions fire altars. Evidence of structures with fire above the chariot burial chamber has been found in Botai. Therfore Botai and Vedas are same-same culture. Botai people went on chariot to Punjab, composing Rig Veda along the way.

What really frustrated me about all the Veda discussions we had on this thread is that NOTHING was done to fundamentally address these lies while everyone fought over the Vedas. By sheer coincidence I spent that last 1 hour watching a NatGeo documentary on 3 Cheetahs in heat who were fighting over a female and fought so much that a couple of lions simply walked up and killed two cheetahs. Ironic innit? The core assumptions of AIT are not touched much by our fighting over the Vedas or lamenting its lack of preservation. The AIT people are hardly concerned with the sounds and meanings of the Vedas. they pick up a word here and word there and that is proof enough for them - so low are their standards. But if their standards are low, our own ability to concentrate on what's actually hitting us seems to be deficient.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ The problem is that you can dispute that horses and chariots came from Botai, but the argument shifts to having come from somewhere else. One has to address this stuff school-by-school of thought.

Or else one has to find evidence that was not available previously or that was overlooked (e.g., genetic data might be one such case) that invalidates all the schools of thought in one shot.

The Vedas discussion simply was to say that from an Indian-centric point of view the Rg Veda Samhita cannot be used to derive historical dates for anything, and we have to be careful of using relatively recent constructions like the anukramanis. The discussion was prolonged more than necessary because people don't want to accept this as a valid point of view.

Independent of KLP Dubeyji's input, I was always a bit skeptical of using the Rg Veda in that way, because the common dodges are to make a convenient shift in meaning or claim that the verses contain exaggerations or metaphors. Thus RV samudra can mean sea; or could have meant lake back then and later only the word came to mean sea; or is an exaggeration; or is metaphorical and abstract (like "space") - depending on which theory you subscribe to; and there is no second check that you can apply. It becomes mutually reinforcing conclusions - since Indo-Aryans were far inland, samudra cannot be sea, and since samudra is not sea, the Indo-Aryans were far inland. (That a hundred oared boat sailed on this samudra might simply be poetic imagination/exaggeration/metaphor also.)

[RajeshA]

^^^ The problem is that you can dispute that horses and chariots came from Botai, but the argument shifts to having come from somewhere else. One has to address this stuff school-by-school of thought.

Or else one has to find evidence that was not available previously or that was overlooked (e.g., genetic data might be one such case) that invalidates all the schools of thought in one shot.

As long as the horses did not come with those who allegedly for the first time introduced Indo-European languages in India, it doesn't really matter where the horse comes from!

[KLP Dubey]

What really frustrated me about all the Veda discussions we had on this thread is that NOTHING was done to fundamentally address these lies while everyone fought over the Vedas.

The OIT version propagated by RajeshA, Elst, Talageri, and their friends is correct. However, consider at your own risk the following nonsensical points:

It is not a "fight" over the Vedas. The point is that the fundamental nature of the Veda and the process of derivation of language and knowledge from it, provide a firm high-level basis for reaching "historical truth". This does NOT need to be "sold to"/"proposed to"/"used to rebut" AIT supporters.

It must be developed "organically" and used to inform Indians of their own history and where it comes from. When that happens, more and more people will be drawn to it because of its intrinsic excellence, and AIT will shrink to nothing. At the moment the OIT world is full of ad hoc attempts. It is good to poke holes in the AIT through ad hoc arguments, but these efforts will also be countered by AITers with other complicated arguments which will no doubt be lauded as great scholarship. Very few people in India will be excited to "learn" from Elst et al that the RV is an account of Indian tribals (just not foreign ones as they were told earlier).

What is needed is OIP (Out-of-India Practice), with OIT emerging naturally from that.

Only when the high-level platform is established, does one need to start the "nitty-gritty". What has been done already could still be revised. Without that high level platform to support it, the danger is that all this will just end up being "busy work" and will have no long-term positive impact on the minds of Indians.

KL

[RajeshA]

What really frustrated me about all the Veda discussions we had on this thread is that NOTHING was done to fundamentally address these lies while everyone fought over the Vedas.

The OIT version propagated by RajeshA, Elst, Talageri, and their friends is correct. However, consider at your own risk the following nonsensical points.

Perhaps you know more about my models than I do! I still have no idea which OIT model I have been propagating! Even Talageri has proposed no OIT model, except for the Iranians! Elst too has no model to offer!

Either you have telepathic ability to read minds at subconscious level of people across the world and know something, something they themselves don't know much about it, or you are may be a bit confused.

[Arjun]

There have been no full-fledged OIT models proposed so far...

What Elst and Talageri have done is to come up with Anti-AIT models. Of the two, the latter uses Vedic philology to make his case (& even this is explicitly justified as a reaction to Witzel using the same methodology) - while Elst does not even do that. His only methodology is basically to refute each and every argument that has been put forward for not including India as contender for PIE homeland.

In my opinion, Elst has probably made the best Anti-AIT case published thus far - followed perhaps by Talageri.

[Agnimitra]

Carl ji, the references you provide are useful - but at the same time they are not definitive in pointing to ONLY one possible inference. So at best, based on the evidence, I can state that it would be good for everyone to have an open mind & it is indeed possible that Sanskrit was derived from the RV rather than RV being composed in Sanskrit.

Of course we must have an open mind. Please check out that book "Science and Sanity" that I linked. It is precisely about having an open, learning mind, an epistemological attitude. It is relevant here because that also happens to be a big part of what the Veda is about, as per traditional sources.

Secondly, no one has even held that the RgVeda is in "Sanskrit", or in anything for that matter. It is Chhandas, if we want to use a word. Sanskrit was always considered a later development.

However, for those who are skeptical you would still have to explain anomalies which are by no means easy. For example, how do you account for words for ayas (metal) and smelting occurring in the RV? This would immediately place the RV in the metal age

As you know, even in Sanskrit, words do not signify objects. They signify properties of states or process. For example, "saras" means something that has the property of fluidity, that is in a flowing state. It could apply to a river, to emotion, to electricity, to relationships, to subtler psychological modes of communication, etc. Similarly, AFAIK "Ayas" refers to a sort of "consuming (something) via pain and thereby exhausting it of some ingredient". Now this could refer to a psychological process involving hard work, or it could refer to the process of smelting and annealing of metals, etc. Now when we see this is true even of Sanskrit, so much the more so for the Vedic proto-language. Note that all Indic mystic traditions have a theory of language that starts from the seed sounds of the Veda, progresses through a "sandhyA bhAshA" (twilight language, part expressed, part hidden) and then reaches a social agreement of words. This is very interesting.

As I had mentioned in the previous post, the past-into-present self-descriptor of the Veda entails its contents being interpreted base on the essence of past, and within the parameters of the best of present logic and technological know-how. So in your "iron age" the word "Ayas" may well have also been applied to metals like iron that were being systematically manufactured by humans. But that doesn't mean it was a neologism of that age that found its way into the language of the Veda.

[RajeshA]

Now I have an idea of how the date of birth/life of Zoroaster has been cooked up. That will be my next quest.

The dating of the Indian Civilization has been screwed up too much by the West, so there is no real possibility of AIT-Nazis accepting the mountain of their mistakes. Thus they have rubbished the dates of all our dynasties, our Itihaas, our scientific treatises, our religious scriptures. Not just the History of Hinduism has been mutilated but through the anchor-sheet of Indian history ('Sandrokottus == Chandragupta Maurya' equation) also the date of Buddha.

But Iranian history is a different animal.

Iranian history has much more historical overlap with Greek history and thus is not so easily to deny! So Zoroaster can perhaps be dated with less resistance!

The interesting bit is that Talageri has established a Rigveda-Avesta relative chronology. Rigveda is earlier than Avesta.

As per Greek sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], Zoroaster lived between around 6480 BCE and 6200 BCE. So that establishes the lower limit of Rigveda as well.

[Agnimitra]

Its interesting that "orthodox" neo-Zoroastrians are now talking about their non-existent tradition of "authentic pronunciations" of the Gathas. Last I checked the Mobeds of Mumbai were using Sanskrit grammar primers to get some idea of what they have of the Avestan Gathas.

The authentic pronunciat​ion of the entire poetic gathas on youtube

[shiv]

Secondly, no one has even held that the RgVeda is in "Sanskrit", or in anything for that matter. It is Chhandas, if we want to use a word. Sanskrit was always considered a later development.
<snip>
As you know, even in Sanskrit, words do not signify objects. They signify properties of states or process. For example, "saras" means something that has the property of fluidity, that is in a flowing state. It could apply to a river, to emotion, to electricity, to relationships, to subtler psychological modes of communication, etc. Similarly, AFAIK "Ayas" refers to a sort of "consuming (something) via pain and thereby exhausting it of some ingredient". Now this could refer to a psychological process involving hard work, or it could refer to the process of smelting and annealing of metals, etc. Now when we see this is true even of Sanskrit, so much the more so for the Vedic proto-language. Note that all Indic mystic traditions have a theory of language that starts from the seed sounds of the Veda, progresses through a "sandhyA bhAshA" (twilight language, part expressed, part hidden) and then reaches a social agreement of words. This is very interesting.

As I had mentioned in the previous post, the past-into-present self-descriptor of the Veda entails its contents being interpreted base on the essence of past, and within the parameters of the best of present logic and technological know-how. So in your "iron age" the word "Ayas" may well have also been applied to metals like iron that were being systematically manufactured by humans. But that doesn't mean it was a neologism of that age that found its way into the language of the Veda.

I see a problem here.

The information Dubey and Carl have posted is hardly something that can be understood in a casual reading by an uninitiated adult whose mind is unable to grab the subtlety of sound coming before word coming before meaning. It is like a revelation, an "aha" moment. As I mentioned (casually) earlier in this thread it was first introduced to me by a friend and former BRFite and I have from time to time suspected that Dubey may be that guy, but no I don't think he is.

When you have information that requires some understanding such as this, it is ideally introduced to small children so they grow up initially with acceptance and later with true understanding. That sequence has unfortunately been lost. We are left with a body of adults who will not "naturally" understand either what Dubey has written or what Carl has written. This is exactly the area in which the simple monotheistic religions scored over Indian thought in winning over simple minds. There was nothing complex that required understanding. If you point a spear at my heart and threaten to kill me I instantly realise which is the best God, and balls to sound and meaning.

The point I want to make is that what Dubey suggests as quoted below is fine as work that needs to be done, but it requires teachers of a very high caliber and superb communication skills to put the idea across. It is not something that one might figure out on one's own in the way I might instantly recognize and accept the superiority of the God who has a knife at my throat.

It is not a "fight" over the Vedas. The point is that the fundamental nature of the Veda and the process of derivation of language and knowledge from it, provide a firm high-level basis for reaching "historical truth". This does NOT need to be "sold to"/"proposed to"/"used to rebut" AIT supporters.

It must be developed "organically" and used to inform Indians of their own history and where it comes from. When that happens, more and more people will be drawn to it because of its intrinsic excellence, and AIT will shrink to nothing. At the moment the OIT world is full of ad hoc attempts. It is good to poke holes in the AIT through ad hoc arguments, but these efforts will also be countered by AITers with other complicated arguments which will no doubt be lauded as great scholarship. Very few people in India will be excited to "learn" from Elst et al that the RV is an account of Indian tribals (just not foreign ones as they were told earlier).

If Dubey's suggestion is to be followed seriously for BRF it needs a separate thread and not under burqa. But it will be years before a sufficiently large body of people can be made to understand this. In the meantime it is essential to be a pig in the sty of historical lingistics and take the fight tooth for tooth, nail for nail using the same nonsensical goalpost shifting techniques used by the AIT crowd.

To that extent I think Dubey's attitude of "OIT is right" is useful. At the very least it does not interfere with the need that people who are less well equipped with knowledge to use their time and skills to fight a vicious group.

[shiv]

But Iranian history is a different animal.

Iranian history has much more historical overlap with Greek history and thus is not so easily to deny! So Zoroaster can perhaps be dated with less resistance!

I have been looking at this in some detail. Zoroasters time is a mess. No one knows, and western scholarship is allergic to dates like 6000 BC and as is typical of all western scholarship on the issue of remote history they cherry pick information that fits in with their beliefs and reject other things. For example Plutarch's biographies are taken as true accounts. If you look at Plutarch's description of Zoroastrianism written in 100 AD or so it is amazingly accurate. However nothing about Zoroastrianism was believed until the 1800s or so and only then it was ralized how accurate Plutach had been. But his date is still rejected. This is what Plutarch wrote:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... is*/C.html

There are also those who call the better one a god and the other a daemon, for example, Zoroaster the sage (true), who, they record, lived five thousand years before the time of the Trojan War (declared as false). He called the one Oromazes (=Ahura Mazda, true) and the other Areimanius (=Angra Mainyu, true) ; and he further declared that among all the things perceptible to the senses, Oromazes may best be compared to light, and Areimanius, conversely, to darkness (True) and ignorance, and midway between the two is Mithras: for this reason the Persians give to Mithras the name of "Mediator." Zoroaster has also taught that men should make votive offerings and thank-offerings to Oromazes, and averting and mourning offerings to Areimanius. They pound up in a mortar a certain plant called omomi (=Haoma/Soma, true) at the same time invoking Hades and Darkness; then they mix it with the blood of a wolf that has been sacrificed, and carry it out and cast it into a place where the sun never shines. In fact, they believe that some of the plants belong to the good god and others to the evil daemon; so also of the animals they think that dogs (true), fowls (true), and hedgehogs, for example, belong to the good god, but that water-rats belong to the evil one; therefore the man who has killed the most of these they hold to be fortunate.